Conservative Legal Fellowships Forum

[legalnovice]

I'm interested in applying for and attending fellowships and seminars geared towards right-leaning, conservative clerks. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution's Originalism Seminar, the Claremont Institute's John Marshall Fellowship, and maybe Fed Soc's James Kent Summer Academy. I've also looked at the James Wilson Institute's Fellowship. Are there any other similar-type of opportunities for incoming/current law clerks?

[Barrred]

Those are the three I've heard of, along with the Heritage Foundation one that got a bunch of negative press last year. If I were you, I'd ask my judge if they are comfortable with me attending, given that some of these programs publish the names of the attendees and who they are clerking for (its possible that even a conservative judge may not want the associated publicity).

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in applying for and attending fellowships and seminars geared towards right-leaning, conservative clerks. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution's Originalism Seminar, the Claremont Institute's John Marshall Fellowship, and maybe Fed Soc's James Kent Summer Academy. I've also looked at the James Wilson Institute's Fellowship. Are there any other similar-type of opportunities for incoming/current law clerks?

Those are the big ones (and I've done all of them). All of those are for a week or so, but if you'll be DC based and want to do an extended fellowship that is scheduled over several months, check out the Antonin Scalia Fellowship (through the Public Interest Fellowship) and the James Madison Fellowship (through Hillsdale's DC campus).

[AAPLTSLADIS]

https://tfas.org/programs/ppf/
https://leonineforum.org/washington-dc/
https://johnjayfellows.com/

[legalnovice]

Thanks for all the responses. This year, I’m doing one of the four I’ve mentioned and I will definitely apply to the others. I’ll look into the other recommended fellowships/seminars as well.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

You might have to reapply until you hit. The quadfecta is difficult to achieve. Very competitive and increasingly more so with every passing year.

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:

100 John Marshall
92 Originalism Summer Seminar
85 James Wilson
82 James Kent

John Marshall is the most difficult of all. By far. Not easy at all.

[legalnovice]

You might have to reapply until you hit. The quadfecta is difficult to achieve. Very competitive and increasingly more so with every passing year.

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:

100 John Marshall
92 Originalism Summer Seminar
85 James Wilson
82 James Kent

John Marshall is the most difficult of all. By far. Not easy at all.

I was hoping to get admitted and attend two of the Originalism Summer Seminar, James Wilson, or James Kent before applying to the John Marshall Fellowship. And I have been admitted to at least one of those programs for this year. My concern is that I’m entering my last year of clerking next term so whenever I’ll be slated to apply for John Marshall, I’ll either be a clerk in the final months of my term, or a private practitioner at a boutique lit firm. Does that status diminish my chances? From my understanding, these programs are usually for prospective clerks or people who are planning to do one in the future. I, on the other hand, will be finished with clerking after next year (barring a miracle SCOTUS clerkship which is 100% impossible for me to get haha).

[Anonymous User]

There are plenty of folks who do James Kent and James Wilson and John Marshall after clerking.

[Iowahawk]

Seriously, who funds this stuff? Paid vacations to go do some networking and take three-day “classes”? Good “work” if you can get it I guess but I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

[legalnovice]

There are plenty of folks who do James Kent and James Wilson and John Marshall after clerking.

Awesome! Thanks!

[showusyourtorts]

I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

+1.

There are obviously similar liberal-leaning fellowships and otherwise, but the difference is that those fellowships are funded by ideologues that don't typically financially benefit from this work, whereas the folks funding these conservative institutions are far more often promoting/funding scholarship that advances their own business or industry.

Of course, that obviously doesn't mean that you can't be a conservative that engages in high-quality, good-faith scholarship that you firmly believe is appropriate (even if it does happen to financially benefit the folks that fund your scholarship). I don't see that as the issue (though there are obviously plenty of bad-faith actors in the conservative legal realm). The issue is that the opposing counterparts aren't funded as acutely and as aggressively because there is often far less of an acute financial benefit to protecting the general public against whatever the moneyed interests want. And there isn't very much of a culture (if at all) of conservatives -- at least the ones that are funded by these fellowships and similar -- to self-regulate to honestly and accurately represent the best arguments against their case in good faith. The end result is not just that the arguments promoting the moneyed interests are buoyed, but that they are often buoyed inappropriately, because that the literature produced through and elevated by these forums is far more likely, on balance, to inaccurately skew toward benefitting some moneyed interest at the expense of the general good.

I'm not too familiar with this world, so I look forward to any good-faith pushback those on this thread may have. My sources are pretty limited (i.e. reading Dark Money like two years ago, watching Rachel Maddow and having close friends in a top school's Federalist Society).

[AAPLTSLADIS]

You might have to reapply until you hit. The quadfecta is difficult to achieve. Very competitive and increasingly more so with every passing year.

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:

100 John Marshall
92 Originalism Summer Seminar
85 James Wilson
82 James Kent

John Marshall is the most difficult of all. By far. Not easy at all.

I was hoping to get admitted and attend two of the Originalism Summer Seminar, James Wilson, or James Kent before applying to the John Marshall Fellowship. And I have been admitted to at least one of those programs for this year. My concern is that I’m entering my last year of clerking next term so whenever I’ll be slated to apply for John Marshall, I’ll either be a clerk in the final months of my term, or a private practitioner at a boutique lit firm. Does that status diminish my chances? From my understanding, these programs are usually for prospective clerks or people who are planning to do one in the future. I, on the other hand, will be finished with clerking after next year (barring a miracle SCOTUS clerkship which is 100% impossible for me to get haha).

It will definitely diminish your chances for John Marshall. Maybe slightly for Originalism Summer Seminar. Negligible/unnoticeable impact for James Kent and James Wilson.

If I were you, I would look up all their previous fellows. You will see outgoing SCOTUS clerks. You will see people working at a firm (the moar prominent the better). The main thing they are looking for is bang for buck. Of course, they would prefer to get bang from influencing an upcoming clerkship, in addition to everything that comes after, but they will (to varying degrees) settle for only post-clerkship bang if they can see you having a large impact down the road. John Marshall is the least likely to accept only post-clerkship bang.

I would mention that you are seeking a SCOTUS clerkship. John Marshall, for example, may let that likelihood influence the application decision or tip the scale.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

Seriously, who funds this stuff? Paid vacations to go do some networking and take three-day “classes”? Good “work” if you can get it I guess but I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

George Soros. George Soros funds it. Hahahaha. Thank you for the laugh.

Yes, liberals don't have any dark money. And if they did, it would pale in comparison to conservative dark money. Hahahahahahhahaha.

But srsly tho, Google is free. I know liberals have zero intellectual curiosity and will never get near uncomfortable facts for fear of cognitive dissonance, but wow.

Hey. Hey. While you're at it, Google Image "baby ultrasound pictures weeks." You'll love that. :O

[legalnovice]

You might have to reapply until you hit. The quadfecta is difficult to achieve. Very competitive and increasingly more so with every passing year.

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:

100 John Marshall
92 Originalism Summer Seminar
85 James Wilson
82 James Kent

John Marshall is the most difficult of all. By far. Not easy at all.

I was hoping to get admitted and attend two of the Originalism Summer Seminar, James Wilson, or James Kent before applying to the John Marshall Fellowship. And I have been admitted to at least one of those programs for this year. My concern is that I’m entering my last year of clerking next term so whenever I’ll be slated to apply for John Marshall, I’ll either be a clerk in the final months of my term, or a private practitioner at a boutique lit firm. Does that status diminish my chances? From my understanding, these programs are usually for prospective clerks or people who are planning to do one in the future. I, on the other hand, will be finished with clerking after next year (barring a miracle SCOTUS clerkship which is 100% impossible for me to get haha).

It will definitely diminish your chances for John Marshall. Maybe slightly for Originalism Summer Seminar. Negligible/unnoticeable impact for James Kent and James Wilson.

If I were you, I would look up all their previous fellows. You will see outgoing SCOTUS clerks. You will see people working at a firm (the moar prominent the better). The main thing they are looking for is bang for buck. Of course, they would prefer to get bang from influencing an upcoming clerkship, in addition to everything that comes after, but they will (to varying degrees) settle for only post-clerkship bang if they can see you having a large impact down the road. John Marshall is the least likely to accept only post-clerkship bang.

I would mention that you are seeking a SCOTUS clerkship. John Marshall, for example, may let that likelihood influence the application decision or tip the scale.

Thanks for your insight. Full disclosure -- I've been accepted to the Originalism Summer Seminar and am in the process of applying to James Wilson/James Kent, but I can only do one or the other this year as the dates overlap. Unfortunately, I can't do John Marshall this year as my next Judge is adamant that I start before the date the Fellowship is supposed to commence. My hope is that next year, with--hopefully--two of the four under my belt, I can still be a competitive applicant for John Marshall. I'll definitely let them know about my future plans (SCOTUS clerkship app, an additional circuit clerkship in the next few years) and maybe that will, as you say, tip the scale despite my resume looking like I'm done with clerkships (I would have done 2 years D.Ct. plus 1 year Circuit Court).

[Anonymous User]

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:


92 Originalism Summer Seminar

I was just rejected for the third time. T14 FedSoc exec. board, current district court clerk in very selective district. I imagine they have their pick of the litter among COA clerks.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

+1.

There are obviously similar liberal-leaning fellowships and otherwise, but the difference is that those fellowships are funded by ideologues that don't typically financially benefit from this work, whereas the folks funding these conservative institutions are far more often promoting/funding scholarship that advances their own business or industry.

Of course, that obviously doesn't mean that you can't be a conservative that engages in high-quality, good-faith scholarship that you firmly believe is appropriate (even if it does happen to financially benefit the folks that fund your scholarship). I don't see that as the issue (though there are obviously plenty of bad-faith actors in the conservative legal realm). The issue is that the opposing counterparts aren't funded as acutely and as aggressively because there is often far less of an acute financial benefit to protecting the general public against whatever the moneyed interests want. And there isn't very much of a culture (if at all) of conservatives -- at least the ones that are funded by these fellowships and similar -- to self-regulate to honestly and accurately represent the best arguments against their case in good faith. The end result is not just that the arguments promoting the moneyed interests are buoyed, but that they are often buoyed inappropriately, because that the literature produced through and elevated by these forums is far more likely, on balance, to inaccurately skew toward benefitting some moneyed interest at the expense of the general good.

I'm not too familiar with this world, so I look forward to any good-faith pushback those on this thread may have. My sources are pretty limited (i.e. reading Dark Money like two years ago, watching Rachel Maddow and having close friends in a top school's Federalist Society).

For anyone reading this ... just ignore. I don't care what a liberal (with a hegemony in education, media, tech, and expanding to corporate America and religion) has to say about our small conservative oasis with paltry funding.

I don't care for your attempt at FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

Rachel Maddow. Lol. How are those tax returns in Russia going?

[showusyourtorts]

I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

+1.

There are obviously similar liberal-leaning fellowships and otherwise, but the difference is that those fellowships are funded by ideologues that don't typically financially benefit from this work, whereas the folks funding these conservative institutions are far more often promoting/funding scholarship that advances their own business or industry.

Of course, that obviously doesn't mean that you can't be a conservative that engages in high-quality, good-faith scholarship that you firmly believe is appropriate (even if it does happen to financially benefit the folks that fund your scholarship). I don't see that as the issue (though there are obviously plenty of bad-faith actors in the conservative legal realm). The issue is that the opposing counterparts aren't funded as acutely and as aggressively because there is often far less of an acute financial benefit to protecting the general public against whatever the moneyed interests want. And there isn't very much of a culture (if at all) of conservatives -- at least the ones that are funded by these fellowships and similar -- to self-regulate to honestly and accurately represent the best arguments against their case in good faith. The end result is not just that the arguments promoting the moneyed interests are buoyed, but that they are often buoyed inappropriately, because that the literature produced through and elevated by these forums is far more likely, on balance, to inaccurately skew toward benefitting some moneyed interest at the expense of the general good.

I'm not too familiar with this world, so I look forward to any good-faith pushback those on this thread may have. My sources are pretty limited (i.e. reading Dark Money like two years ago, watching Rachel Maddow and having close friends in a top school's Federalist Society).

For anyone reading this ... just ignore. I don't care what a liberal (with a hegemony in education, media, tech, and expanding to corporate America and religion) has to say about our small conservative oasis with paltry funding.

I don't care for your attempt at FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

Rachel Maddow. Lol. How are those tax returns in Russia going?

I cited watching Rachel Maddow as an explanation of my admittedly one-sided/limited knowledge.

[Barrred]

I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

+1.

There are obviously similar liberal-leaning fellowships and otherwise, but the difference is that those fellowships are funded by ideologues that don't typically financially benefit from this work, whereas the folks funding these conservative institutions are far more often promoting/funding scholarship that advances their own business or industry.

Of course, that obviously doesn't mean that you can't be a conservative that engages in high-quality, good-faith scholarship that you firmly believe is appropriate (even if it does happen to financially benefit the folks that fund your scholarship). I don't see that as the issue (though there are obviously plenty of bad-faith actors in the conservative legal realm). The issue is that the opposing counterparts aren't funded as acutely and as aggressively because there is often far less of an acute financial benefit to protecting the general public against whatever the moneyed interests want. And there isn't very much of a culture (if at all) of conservatives -- at least the ones that are funded by these fellowships and similar -- to self-regulate to honestly and accurately represent the best arguments against their case in good faith. The end result is not just that the arguments promoting the moneyed interests are buoyed, but that they are often buoyed inappropriately, because that the literature produced through and elevated by these forums is far more likely, on balance, to inaccurately skew toward benefitting some moneyed interest at the expense of the general good.

I'm not too familiar with this world, so I look forward to any good-faith pushback those on this thread may have. My sources are pretty limited (i.e. reading Dark Money like two years ago, watching Rachel Maddow and having close friends in a top school's Federalist Society).

For anyone reading this ... just ignore. I don't care what a liberal (with a hegemony in education, media, tech, and expanding to corporate America and religion) has to say about our small conservative oasis with paltry funding.

I don't care for your attempt at FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

Rachel Maddow. Lol. How are those tax returns in Russia going?

I cited watching Rachel Maddow as an explanation of my admittedly one-sided/limited knowledge.

Yet you felt it was a sufficient basis to slander conservative lawyers as intellectually dishonest and beholden to "dark money" interests if they have the audacity to attend a week-long program to learn about originalism. This isn't the place to have the argument you're clearly trying to provoke.

[legalnovice]

As the original poster, I'll also chime in on the FUD. I originally asked my questions here to gain a better understanding of the fellowships I posted about and whether there were other opportunities I may have overlooked. I wasn't looking to stir up a debate or even a conversation about the funding for these opportunities or the motives of the people who support them. For the record, I don't really care. And, as one other poster intimated, my failure to care mainly stems from the fact that in our legal industry (and across America), there is undoubtedly a hegemony of liberal ideas in our thought, culture, and media which affects our day-to-day interactions. As someone who was raised with values and beliefs in opposition to most of those ideas, I'd like to find a place where like-minded conservatives can network, study, and learn more about the law and how we can voice out our beliefs in the legal field. If I had the same money as the people/entities who are funding these places, hell, I'd also love to contribute.

That's my spiel on the issue and will refrain from further debate, but any more insight on my questions are welcome!

[AAPLTSLADIS]

You might have to reapply until you hit. The quadfecta is difficult to achieve. Very competitive and increasingly more so with every passing year.

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:

100 John Marshall
92 Originalism Summer Seminar
85 James Wilson
82 James Kent

John Marshall is the most difficult of all. By far. Not easy at all.

I was hoping to get admitted and attend two of the Originalism Summer Seminar, James Wilson, or James Kent before applying to the John Marshall Fellowship. And I have been admitted to at least one of those programs for this year. My concern is that I’m entering my last year of clerking next term so whenever I’ll be slated to apply for John Marshall, I’ll either be a clerk in the final months of my term, or a private practitioner at a boutique lit firm. Does that status diminish my chances? From my understanding, these programs are usually for prospective clerks or people who are planning to do one in the future. I, on the other hand, will be finished with clerking after next year (barring a miracle SCOTUS clerkship which is 100% impossible for me to get haha).

It will definitely diminish your chances for John Marshall. Maybe slightly for Originalism Summer Seminar. Negligible/unnoticeable impact for James Kent and James Wilson.

If I were you, I would look up all their previous fellows. You will see outgoing SCOTUS clerks. You will see people working at a firm (the moar prominent the better). The main thing they are looking for is bang for buck. Of course, they would prefer to get bang from influencing an upcoming clerkship, in addition to everything that comes after, but they will (to varying degrees) settle for only post-clerkship bang if they can see you having a large impact down the road. John Marshall is the least likely to accept only post-clerkship bang.

I would mention that you are seeking a SCOTUS clerkship. John Marshall, for example, may let that likelihood influence the application decision or tip the scale.

Thanks for your insight. Full disclosure -- I've been accepted to the Originalism Summer Seminar and am in the process of applying to James Wilson/James Kent, but I can only do one or the other this year as the dates overlap. Unfortunately, I can't do John Marshall this year as my next Judge is adamant that I start before the date the Fellowship is supposed to commence. My hope is that next year, with--hopefully--two of the four under my belt, I can still be a competitive applicant for John Marshall. I'll definitely let them know about my future plans (SCOTUS clerkship app, an additional circuit clerkship in the next few years) and maybe that will, as you say, tip the scale despite my resume looking like I'm done with clerkships (I would have done 2 years D.Ct. plus 1 year Circuit Court).

Whoa whoa whoa. I think I would apply to John Marshall now. Many times, it takes several attempts to hit. Go ahead and apply now to show that your interest is long-standing. Look at it this way. If you get dinged, you can re-work your materials for round 2 and come back stronger and demonstrate long-standing and continuing interest. Plus you get a free year-long subscription to their magazine if you get dinged lol. If you get accepted, you can ask them to defer for a year because X, Y, Z. I would feel comfortable doing this because the odds of acceptance are so low, and it helps your application to have tried, and tried, and tried.

Also congrats on Originalism Summer Seminar. Randy is AMAZING.

[showusyourtorts]

I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

+1.

There are obviously similar liberal-leaning fellowships and otherwise, but the difference is that those fellowships are funded by ideologues that don't typically financially benefit from this work, whereas the folks funding these conservative institutions are far more often promoting/funding scholarship that advances their own business or industry.

Of course, that obviously doesn't mean that you can't be a conservative that engages in high-quality, good-faith scholarship that you firmly believe is appropriate (even if it does happen to financially benefit the folks that fund your scholarship). I don't see that as the issue (though there are obviously plenty of bad-faith actors in the conservative legal realm). The issue is that the opposing counterparts aren't funded as acutely and as aggressively because there is often far less of an acute financial benefit to protecting the general public against whatever the moneyed interests want. And there isn't very much of a culture (if at all) of conservatives -- at least the ones that are funded by these fellowships and similar -- to self-regulate to honestly and accurately represent the best arguments against their case in good faith. The end result is not just that the arguments promoting the moneyed interests are buoyed, but that they are often buoyed inappropriately, because that the literature produced through and elevated by these forums is far more likely, on balance, to inaccurately skew toward benefitting some moneyed interest at the expense of the general good.

I'm not too familiar with this world, so I look forward to any good-faith pushback those on this thread may have. My sources are pretty limited (i.e. reading Dark Money like two years ago, watching Rachel Maddow and having close friends in a top school's Federalist Society).

For anyone reading this ... just ignore. I don't care what a liberal (with a hegemony in education, media, tech, and expanding to corporate America and religion) has to say about our small conservative oasis with paltry funding.

I don't care for your attempt at FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

Rachel Maddow. Lol. How are those tax returns in Russia going?

I cited watching Rachel Maddow as an explanation of my admittedly one-sided/limited knowledge.

Yet you felt it was a sufficient basis to slander conservative lawyers as intellectually dishonest and beholden to "dark money" interests if they have the audacity to attend a week-long program learn about originalism. This isn't the place to have the argument you're clearly trying to provoke.

The thoughts in my post were almost entirely based upon the research that was presented in the book Dark Money (by Jane Meyer). If you don't think that that book was well-researched or fairly balanced, I'd love to hear your thoughts. If you think that the book was fine, but that there are equally compelling cases that cut against liberals (whether written in long-form, written in short-form, or largely not written much about but nonetheless existing in reality), then I'd love to hear your thoughts and any materials you may have on those points.

FWIW, I will repeat my opinion that I think you can obviously be a conservative that engages in high-quality, good-faith scholarship that you firmly believe is appropriate. I never stated -- and I think it's clear that I don't believe -- that every conservative lawyer that attends a week-long program to learn about originalism is automatically intellectually dishonest. My post was about my understanding of the funding patterns of these fellowships and the literature that they produce and the legitimacy that they bestow as a result of that funding, in part due to what I perceive as intellectual dishonesty by some subset of those attorneys that are forcefully financially supported by interested parties. That does not speak to whether I think that all of - or even anywhere near a majority of - conservative attorneys are intellectually dishonest.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:


92 Originalism Summer Seminar

I was just rejected for the third time. T14 FedSoc exec. board, current district court clerk in very selective district. I imagine they have their pick of the litter among COA clerks.

I'm sorry to hear. You are correct. Randy could fill every slot, like 4 times over, using just COA clerks, and standards would not suffer one bit.

If I were in your shoes, I would get on Twitter and very intelligently engage with him. (Just be careful not to post stuff that's going to be cancelable years from now.) That would likely help your app.

[nixy]

a liberal (with a hegemony in education, media, tech, and expanding to corporate America and religion)

Lol. Okay.

(Please note: this isn’t a commentary on the fellowships under discussion. OP, best of luck in your applications.)

[AAPLTSLADIS]

One more piece of advice. If you're somewhat close friends with former fellows, ask them to put in a good word for you. It helps. John Marshall specifically asks fellows for recommendations for the upcoming year.

[legalnovice]

You might have to reapply until you hit. The quadfecta is difficult to achieve. Very competitive and increasingly more so with every passing year.

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:

100 John Marshall
92 Originalism Summer Seminar
85 James Wilson
82 James Kent

John Marshall is the most difficult of all. By far. Not easy at all.

I was hoping to get admitted and attend two of the Originalism Summer Seminar, James Wilson, or James Kent before applying to the John Marshall Fellowship. And I have been admitted to at least one of those programs for this year. My concern is that I’m entering my last year of clerking next term so whenever I’ll be slated to apply for John Marshall, I’ll either be a clerk in the final months of my term, or a private practitioner at a boutique lit firm. Does that status diminish my chances? From my understanding, these programs are usually for prospective clerks or people who are planning to do one in the future. I, on the other hand, will be finished with clerking after next year (barring a miracle SCOTUS clerkship which is 100% impossible for me to get haha).

It will definitely diminish your chances for John Marshall. Maybe slightly for Originalism Summer Seminar. Negligible/unnoticeable impact for James Kent and James Wilson.

If I were you, I would look up all their previous fellows. You will see outgoing SCOTUS clerks. You will see people working at a firm (the moar prominent the better). The main thing they are looking for is bang for buck. Of course, they would prefer to get bang from influencing an upcoming clerkship, in addition to everything that comes after, but they will (to varying degrees) settle for only post-clerkship bang if they can see you having a large impact down the road. John Marshall is the least likely to accept only post-clerkship bang.

I would mention that you are seeking a SCOTUS clerkship. John Marshall, for example, may let that likelihood influence the application decision or tip the scale.

Thanks for your insight. Full disclosure -- I've been accepted to the Originalism Summer Seminar and am in the process of applying to James Wilson/James Kent, but I can only do one or the other this year as the dates overlap. Unfortunately, I can't do John Marshall this year as my next Judge is adamant that I start before the date the Fellowship is supposed to commence. My hope is that next year, with--hopefully--two of the four under my belt, I can still be a competitive applicant for John Marshall. I'll definitely let them know about my future plans (SCOTUS clerkship app, an additional circuit clerkship in the next few years) and maybe that will, as you say, tip the scale despite my resume looking like I'm done with clerkships (I would have done 2 years D.Ct. plus 1 year Circuit Court).

Whoa whoa whoa. I think I would apply to John Marshall now. Many times, it takes several attempts to hit. Go ahead and apply now to show that your interest is long-standing. Look at it this way. If you get dinged, you can re-work your materials for round 2 and come back stronger and demonstrate long-standing and continuing interest. Plus you get a free year-long subscription to their magazine if you get dinged lol. If you get accepted, you can ask them to defer for a year because X, Y, Z. I would feel comfortable doing this because the odds of acceptance are so low, and it helps your application to have tried, and tried, and tried.

Also congrats on Originalism Summer Seminar. Randy is AMAZING.

If the low chances of me getting John Marshall this year happens, do you think requesting to defer my fellowship would be reasonable (because of my next clerkship’s start/end dates)? I’d be scared to burn that bridge. Obviously this may be an irrational concern since I most likely wouldn’t get it this year anyways, and I think having two of the four fellowships on my resume may substantially help next year.